> Steven Lo Vollu wrote regarding Luke 22:38,
>
>> GAR explains why they should get
>> swords: the scripture that says he will be numbered with the transgressors
>> must be fulfilled, and it will be fulfilled by the disciples having swords,
>> like revolutionaries (see v. 50). When told they had two swords, Jesus
>> responds hIKANON ESTIN ("It is sufficient."), i.e., it is sufficient to
>> fulfill the scripture about him being numbered with the transgressors.
>
> I found this an interesting point, Steven, and I'm going to chew it over.
> Just a question in regard to it: if the swords were part of the Lord's being
> numbered with the transgressors, is there any significance in this not being
> raised in the accusations made against him? I would have thought that the
> being numbered with the transgressors relates to his death between two
> thieves.

The accusations made by the Jews before Pilate in Luke do seem to imply
insurrection (Luke 22.23ff.; 23.13ff.). That the incident of Luke 22.50f. is
not specifically raised in the charges of the Jews is odd, I think, whether
or not my interpretation of hIKANON ESTIN is valid. Maybe what Luke writes
in 22.23ff. is just a summary statement of more specific accusations that
were made, including the incident of 22.50f.

As for the prophecy being fulfilled by Jesus' death with the two thieves,
note that Luke does not relate this prophecy specifically to that event
(23.32ff.). Rather, he seems to have a different purpose altogether in his
inclusion of that story (see 23.39ff.). This is one of the reasons it is
hard to understand the relationship between Luke 22.36 and 37 (joined by
GAR) if Luke *doesn't* link the swords to the fulfillment of the prophecy.
Why mention the prophecy in a context where the reader is likely not to make
the connection between it and its fulfillment, if indeed the fulfillment is
found in 23.32-43?
--